Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/1096/2011

The Manager,Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mohan & another - Opp.Party(s)

Sampath Kumar Associates

09 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                     BEFORE         THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI       PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                         Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER

                                                        F.A.NO. 1096/2011

[Against the Order in  C.C No.33/2010 dated 16.9.2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore ]

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

1.The Manager

The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd,

Singanallur Branch, Singanallur,

Coimbatore – 5                                     ..Appellant/2^nd opp.party

                                        Vs

1.Mohan

S/o Arumugam

D.No.33, Rayappasamy Thever street

Kamatchipuram, Coimbatore -16          ..1^st Respondent/complainant

     

2. The Manager

Central Bank ATM card Division,

Main Branch, Near Kannan Departmental Store

Trichy Road, Coimbatore                      ..2^nd Respondent/1^st opp.party

 

Counsel for the Appellant/2^nd opp.party    : M/s Sampath kumar Associates

Counsel for 1^st Respondent/complainant   : M/s J.Vasu 

Counsel for 2^nd Respondent/1^st opp.party  : M/s T.M.Hariharan

 

The 2^nd opposite party is the appellant.  The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/opposite parties filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC.No. 33/2010 dated 16.9.2011. 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 4.6.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Coimbatore this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.     The 2^nd opposite party is the appellant.

2.      The complainant having savings bank account along with ATM card facilities withdrawn money of Rs. 5000/- from the 1^st opposite  party  ATM machine at Coimbatore and the money was not delivered except with the printed slip and thereby once again tried for a lesser value of Rs. 1000/- which was not also delivered except to receive the printed slip and thereby after approaching the 2^nd opposite party filed the consumer complaint claiming for refund of Rs.1000/- since Rs.5000/- already refunded claiming along with compensation for Rs.50,000/- and for costs.

3.       The 2^nd opposite party contended since the money was withdrawn from the 1^st opposite party’s  ATM machine and  the 1^st opposite party as already the debited of Rs.5000/- was reversed to the complainant’s account and as for as the balance of Rs.1000/- is concerned since the 1^st opposite party stated that the money was actually withdrawn and delivered by the ATM machine to the drawer thereby the amount was received by the complainant which cannot be refunded.

4.       The 1^st opposite party denied the same thing  and if at all the dispute is between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party as per RBI guidelines. The District Forum after an enquiry allowed the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party only by directing the refund of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% p.a and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost.

5.          Aggrieved by the impugned order, the 2^nd opposite party filed an appeal contended that the District Forum allowed the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party without taking into consideration of the money of Rs.1000/- actually withdrawn and delivered through the ATM machine of 1^st opposite party, as per the 1^st opposite party and there is no liability by the appellant/2^nd opposite party.

6.      The appellant/2^nd opposite party also relied upon with the additional documents filed before this Commission which are permitted to be marked as Ex.B.14 to Ex.B.18.

7.        We have heard both side arguments and carefully considered the materials in this regard. It is not in dispute that the complainant having savings bank account with the 2^nd opposite party with the facility to use ATM card and while using ATM card in the 1^st opposite party’s ATM machine on 21.10.2009, he tried for Rs.5000/- which was not delivered and subsequently for Rs.1000/- which was also not delivered and there after addressing to the 2^nd opposite party and through the 1^st opposite party, since only a sum of Rs. 5000/- alone was reversed to his account from the originally debited  Rs.6000/- and for the balance amount of Rs.1000/-, as the appellant contended that the amount was actually withdrawn from the ATM by the withdrawing person as per the Central  Serving System Record and as acquired bank, they acted with the procedure and it is for the 2^nd opposite party to settle the dispute to the complainant as per RBI norms. It is the boundan duty of the issuing bank (2^nd opposite party) with whom the complainant having account and issued the ATM card to reimburse the customer of the amount wrongly debited within a period of 12 days from the receipt of the customer’s complaint as per the circulars of the Reserve Bank of India.

8.       Whereas the 2^nd opposite party contended since the 1^st opposite party informed that the amount was already withdrawn and paid to the person who had done the ATM card operation and thereby the same has to be reimbursed to the 1^st opposite party, the amount need not be paid to the complainant. The District Forum after considering all the materials observed as follows in its order,

9.       Instances of ATM machines failing to dispense money and issuing only slips as if the amounts had been dispensed is not ruled out. One such case is reported in I (2010) CPJ 576 in the case of Sathish Bansal Vs ICICI Bank – Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh wherein a case had been filed against the bank confirming that in a ATM transaction, amount did not come out of the ATM but the same was debited from the account of the ATM card holder, it is therefore, incumbent on the part of the bank to prove that their ATM had actually dispensed with Rs.7000/- on 31.10.2007 when the complainant operated their ATM at Peelamedu branch. Further the appellant before this Commission had relied upon the documents as additional evidence under Ex.B.14 to B.18 in which produced the correspondence from the 1^st opposite party and also internal correspondence between I.T Department and branch of the appellant under Ex.B.17 and since as per Ex.B.18. The transactions effected on 21.10.2009 for withdrawal of Rs.1000/- with ATM ID 0175 1269 for Rs.1000/- was effective, the appellant argued that only the 1^st opposite party as to pay the amount to the complainant which plea cannot be accepted since the amount effected or not in the dispute between the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party and the appellant/2^nd opposite party as to resolve the same with 1^st opposite party by taking the matter to the higher authorities or in other mode of way under the banking Rules and regulations. In this case, either the opposite party or 2^nd opposite party did not produce any documents for the entire cash transactions for the particular day on 21.10.2009 relating to the ATM machine of 1^st opposite party from which the complainant contended to withdraw to prove that out of those entire transactions to allege the amount of effectively delivered to the person who are attempted the withdrawer”  and  thereby the District Forum taking into consideration with all the relevant materials came to the proper conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party and thereby ordered for refund of the amount of Rs.1000/- with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant, we find no need for interference. However while considering the question of grant of quantum of  compensation, is concerned for the non-reversing the amount of Rs.1000/- which  was  alleged  to  have  been  admitted  to  be  withdrawn  from the

 other bank ATM not-belonging to the mother branch apart from directing to refund the amount of Rs. 1000/- with interest from 23.10.2009 and also Rs.10,000/- as compensation is somewhat on the higher side not proportionate to the sum refundable, thereby we are inclined to reduce the compensation reasonably by allowing the appeal in part by in modifying the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore and accordingly,

           In the result, the appeal is allowed in part,  modifying the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in CC 33/2010, dated 16.9.2011, reducing the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7000/- and in other respects, confirming the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore.

           No order as to costs in this appeal. 

          The directions shall be complied within six weeks from the date of this order.

 

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                      A.K.ANNAMALAI                            

   MEMBER                                                PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER